Skip to main content

About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
to ensure civilians in pakistan would not be hit a unmanned drones the united states was using get the taliban and al qaeda. tonight new evidence that this confidence is simply wrong. is part of this to do with a chill in relations between pakistan and washington? >> it is indeed of course. of course. desai's been a secret war as you like conducted by the cia in pakistan using these unmanned aircraft. if one looks at the history of it, one can see how it is ramped up but now there are questions in the wake -- of course the vast majority of these raids have been carried out in so-called tribal areas on the border with afghanistan, and over the years the number has gone up steadily. in the first few years in the strikes of 2,042,007 they're just a handful and then we see it going up in 2010. the obama administration rising at a policy never fully publicly articulated. 118 strikes last year and 45 so far this year. the pakistanis said a couple of months ago that they wanted him stopped them stopped and they ordered the cia out in their base in pakistan were some of the strikes are bei
the east to the pakistan border. that's where i spent my time. we're starting to see a lot of the flow from fighters coming from pakistan. >> let me ask you, drawn down 33,000 troops by september of next year, good shape in kandahar and helmand province. how can you maintain momentum and win a war when you're pulling out 1/3 of the best soldiers you've got. >> a couple of things, one, we're having as we had with a bond conference in 2001. what's interesting is as we were talking about troop deployments and actual mission and strategy, we're in the process of escalating the troop numbers. now we're having the reconciliation with the taliban and networks, etc., as we're decelerating. that factors in to the larger conversation. the second thing that's important to remember about the troop assignments is how many will be combat troops or support troops. what are the areas you're going to pen trade in to and hold on to the areas as well. >> "the new york times" reporting this morning that the obama administration officials believe that pakistan's spy agency ordered the killing of a pakistani jou
was on pakistan's safe havens there. that where many in washington believe al qaeda was hiding. big concerns they naif found a breathing space in afghanistan. >> if they have a breathing space in afghanistan, we are nearing a decade mark in this conflict. can you push al qaeda out of afghanistan permanently, and the subquestion in that scenario has been when will the afghans be ready to do this themselves? when will they take the lead in the army and police? where are we there? >> reporter: very difficult to answer that. the immediate reaction is the afghans are nowhere near ready. the bulk of the army, the guys we saw in that piece, that report back there, only 5 out of 15 willing to go on patrol one morning. many patrols turned back because the afghans weren't ready to go down. concerns there certainly if they are trying to hunt down the remnants of al qaeda or perhaps returning al qaeda elements within pakistan, those are afghan army soldiers we came across on the job. frankly, also the american presence isn't strong or sophisticated or maybe well equipped enough to go after those element
sightedness of it gets us in more trouble than anything else. pertaining to pakistan, having grown up there in the earlier years of my life, and it cannot tell you the immense good will that was there for the americans in the 1980's when we were fighting the soviets and freedom fighters of that time. the day the soviets left, the very next day everyone packed up their bags and left. that region was left with the master deal with on its own. come 9/11, all of a sudden they want that place to be fixed. well, no one was there for 13-14 years. we need to have a longer-term view. if we do not do that, there is no way we can solve our problems. thank you and i will listen offline. host: that may be a way to look at the broader question before we wrap up, but the remainder of the middle east long term. guest: this gets to the issue we spoke about earlier about whether the u.s. is going to support the democratic process in the future. i think the caller is right certainly in the case of pakistan and afghanistan. the united states lost sight of the importance of the region after the soviet the
interests or an authorization debate in the congress. given all that is at stake in pakistan, afghanistan, iran, saudi arabia, egypt, syria, yemen and elsewhere in the islamic world, a rational strategic assessment would not devote sizable american military and economic resources to a civil war in libya. it is an expensive diversion that leaves the united states and our european allies with fewer assets to respond to other contingencies. under the constitution, it is our responseability to determine whether we should be a party to libya's civil war. as a part of this process we will consider the terms and scope of the joint resolution before us today. i'm concerned this resolution would provide broad authorities, permitting significant expansion of the united states military involvement in libya's civil war. the resolution would authorize the president to reescalate united states military involvement in libya, to and potentially beyond the lead role it played at the beginning of the operation when the united states carried out intensive airstrikes on a daily basis. the resolution would on
into the gulf of oman, towards pakistan. it is very important. these two monarchies have done everything possible to crush any sign or effort of reform or agitation for reform. in the case of the saudi arabia, there were quite successful in doing this. some of the liberal saudis tried to have a so-called day of raids on march 11. -- a so-called day of rage on march 11. exactly one person showed up in riyadh. that person was swamped by journalists. but 17,000 people had signed up on the facebook page to come out and participate in the day of rage. some shiites in the eastern province show that the day before and had their demonstration. but, basically, the saudis have been able to mobilize not only the threat of security forces cracking down on anybody who demonstrates, the got the religious establishment making any kind of demonstrations religiously forbidden. they put pressure on families to keep their kids at home. and they succeeded. in the case of bahrain, it was much more messy, and you have a shiite majority there of 70% may become a 65% to 75%. and they were on their way to probab
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)